tv U.S. Senate CSPAN November 4, 2011 9:00am-12:00pm EDT
zero, and i don't know -- >> no, no, how much exists? because i believe in the fallibility of mankind, so i know that there is some. but i'm curious what number you would settle on or your staff that's rolling your eyes behind you would settle on. >> i don't know how much fraud does exist. >> okay. i would like to find out then from maybe our inspectors general what they think, but i would also like to know what interimly you all believe is that number so, please, feel free to get back to me on that. in fact, i insist that you get back to me on this. ..
>> my staff went out, this was at the corner. when that are brought up is like no, no, no. wait a minute. i guess it's the wrong city. the city, in the same county, my home county but about 20, 25 miles south in holland. that address under his way with because it's across the street from where my daughter takes her ballet lessons. that would be the headquarters of heritage home in incorporated, the person who was doing the developing. you all couldn't tell me where their projects were so i called them. we called them and talk to them. they supplied us with three different locations. i'm just curious why we are in that spot, and i know that the ranking member has asked what are those specifics.
i think we start here if you those, what are the specific action items that we can do? i fully believe that you all and hud, when you're told about fraud, where you discover that fraud, you pursue the. i have no doubts about that. my problem is i don't believe that there are systems in place to deter that fraud. or that waste or that abuse of the system. now, earlier mr. mccarty, you're talking about not knowing what is out there is what is troubling. that was your quote. i think on page four of your testimony you go into some of those problems. mr. beaudette, you said after my friend stivers had run through of a fortune suggestion she thought the suggestions were in place. i don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, mr. mccarty, your look on your face at the point gave me an and that contradict that. i would like him to want to take
a moment? >> not going to to great detail from my position, that our assistant inspector general testified before the june committee hearing. spoke very well to that. our audit work 60 plus office that we have done. and the number of systemic problems within the controls, the monitoring, the oversight of the home program. >> okay. hud is not perfect as our colleague from texas has less. that would not be the case, i think, based on the context of what happened in the first panel, whether it was him our friend from illinois. they defended the internal systems of hud. they defend the actions have gone on. that to me is unconscionable. we have got an ability here to go in -- >> if the children would shield -- >> and change, yes, that would be congressman gutierrez was talking about that and congressman green.
it seems to me that we have got some areas that we need to improve on. we have one side that is battling back on that and we're trying to get in place are some of those control systems that are the simple basic things that you do when am reminded little company back in michigan or whether you're running a major corporation like mr. renacci has done, or whether you're running gm, you must know what your assets are, where they are in the sense of them. when i listed my developing as well, the bank had a lot of trust in my family for about 50 years of business. but guess what? they drove past every single one of my developments on a regular basis to make sure we were actually doing the work. that is trust and verify. that's what we need. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i'm not going to go through a lot of the end of the controls but i am shocked my colleague
indicated that we only learned one thing. one thing about, one thing about internal controls is one in turn the control does not fix things. julie would have three or four thank you the opportunity catch things. so even though there'll be a potential, three bits, and maybe somebody could change or get the other person to change his bid, if you still do site visits, i've done about construction, everything i've ever worked with went out and did site visits. -third party companies go out and do an unannounced review of my projects. and i've had random visits, all these things are part of internal controls but you can't pick just one thing. here's what we learned today. we have some fraud. i don't know what it is. and again it sounds like if you know to never is, we talked about 14%, it could be 2%, 5%.
if it's 1 dollar we can stop it is a problem. the taxpayers that i represent are not happy whether we waste a dollar, $10, especially if we can catch it. we know we'll have issues of fraud. the question is what procedures can put in place? i don't know what to produce, but i know we have some of that. mr. mccarty, usage opened a 51 investigations. you also said that those came from confidential informants. and so informants are giving you the answer, but i think you get the internal controls in place you wouldn't have to worry about informants. if informants give you the answers many internal controls will also help you. if you're only catching 14% fraud maybe there's 30%. you have to control control. what i have learned is that i'm not sure that any of you can tell me that we have at least four minimum interval controls in place. i would like to get the answer. i'm going to put -- in ohio,
this facility was funded $212,000 through 2008. i will bet you that if somebody, one of my for internal control come if somebody would've done iran to visit a web and looked at that they would've had a hard time finding $212,000 in funding to the house. so the question is not whether the program is good. we can talk all they asked whether the program is good. the question is whether we can save some dollars it could be used in that program to better other recipients. so, i would ask somehow someway, because i'm leaving here today with this question mark, do we have internal controls? i would love to an answer. to have multiple can internal controls, not just one? i did hear from the witnesses before, both of those witnesses said whether they are criminals or not, if the for internal controls were in place, they
would not have done what they did. so somehow someway, i don't want to leave this hearing and not get a follow-up that tells me what the internal controls are, how they are using. look, i understand that the big department and i understand there's a lot of good programs going on. but the american people are counting on us and they are counting on you to implement these programs properly, and to make sure the proper internal controls are in. not just one but all of them. those are not expensive internal controls to require the recipient to pay for a third party review, which could be done very simply. and that, hopefully my colleagues can say that there's another thing he learned, a third party review, and inexpensive third party review to stop some of this. so i appreciate your time and i yield back. thank you. >> thank you. and i recognize myself for five minutes.
mr. donohue, you in your testimony you said that there is a need in many of the hud programs including home for hud. and the grantee recipient to aggressively monitor the sub grantees. let other programs would you recommend that this committee review? >> you mean programs that hud itself? >> yes. >> i think any grant activity in hud or any government agency -- >> or any other. >> yeah. i think any activity where a grant application are involved, i think it warrants, it has to warrant my estimation of monitoring practice not just with the grantee of the sub grantees level. and i think, i think without that, i mean, what in effect we're doing is we're telling innocent by not doing it, we're telling the grantees were not going to look at you. why would he spend the cost to
go back and monitor the subgrantees? i think my estimation we can encourage wrongdoing. >> thank you. we certainly don't want to do that. that leads me into mr. beaudette, in your testimony you state that with approximately 30,000 pending individual projects at anytime, it would require additional appropriation of funds to reach the level of increased numbers of hud's dad to literally allow monitoring of day-to-day projects. is there a way, as mr. donohue said, about we really have to have the grantees and the subgrantees to have that monitored, but is there a way to let that go down so that it is not just hud having to really monitor all of that? >> i believe -- >> or do we really need more financial, financial, you know, money to be able to make sure
that there is the fraud? >> i think we would probably need more funding. given state and local governments nowadays. i'm not sure if they would be ready to jump on the bandwagon to enhance their monitoring. we could certainly do it, too. it would require additional funding. >> and that would be nice but obviously we can't spend the money that we don't have right now so we really have to find other ways to do that. mr. handelman, which you have any -- i think we all recognize, this is a huge project but it's a very important project. we want to make a come if we can help to make it work better. >> and i agree in improving the effectiveness of the program is important what i observed its cost effectiveness needs to be part of the calculation. it does not benefit us all collectively tend 0 to save 1 dollar. so as we look at ways to improve internal controls and monitoring
competing at the subgrantees level, which i think potential is useful, i would hope we do in a cost effective way to maximize how much of program funding is creating a portal housing rather than enforcement. as mr. don gunther, a few moments ago, you would build the cost of enforcement into the grant which necessarily means it's taking away from funds that would go to create houses. >> and then mr. mccarty, in your testimony it appears that there's about 20% of your audits are conducted due to recommendations from hud. would that be a way, why doesn't hud recommend more of it? and would that be necessary? >> well, i think since they are the ones working the programs and have firsthand knowledge of how they should be working, if they are effective enough we would encourage them so we could look at with our audit staff around the country. >> and so that would be one way
to try and alleviate the broad? >> yes, ma'am. >> well, i think i finish my question, and i want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony. i think it's been very enlightening. thank you all, and the chair knows that some members may have additional questions for the panel which they may wish to submit in writing. and without objection the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for memory to submit written questions and place responses in the record. >> madam chair? thank you. we have been here for about three hours now and three hours with it for professional gentlemen who i think have some great and wonderful ideas and looking forward to getting, actually accomplish what we say want to accomplish. we also spent an hour and a half on a dog and pony sideshow, my opinion waste time of congress, wasted taxpayers money, and give us no light into the issues.
these gentlemen have given a somewhat and hope we will give us more. even in the hearings we had questions asked of these people that they couldn't possibly answer. how much fraud is in hud? if the answer the question the next question would've been and should be if you know this 10%, 5%, 14%, 100% fraud, why didn't you stop at? they don't know how much because if they knew they would stop it. if we ask these kind of question, even that question is the wrong people, wrong people on this panel. so the reason i just wanted to have a closing statement was simply because everybody here wants to minimize and eliminate -- eliminate as much fraud as possibly i would argue those much like the home program had the most to gain by limiting fraud the most. i want as much money put into these programs as possible. what do we get? pictures of pretty homes put up on the screen that no one knows where they are. they weren't asked this question before. if you want to chase the particular issue of fraud, they
should let these german knows who they can do their job, chase them down, but more people in jail. it's not a problem. what i'm simply asking is that if we are serious about shutting that are limiting fraud then we should ask any serious manner talking to professionals, getting their ideas and implementing them to the best of our ability. at the cost money we have to have a discussion about is it worth the money. good point, good issues, but to me i'm hoping the next time we do this we do it anymore serious manner and leave the dog and pony show to some other committee. we haven't done that here up until now. and i regret that we went through this. not the second panel. the second panel was useful. the first panel was a dog and pony show that shed no light and am looking for to receiving some thoughtful information from these gentlemen so maybe we can implement some serious improvements of the hud program. thank you, madam chairwoman.
and you for your indulgence. >> thank you. let me just say i think we want to ensure that we can help to move forward and not have the way stride in the abuse that is there and to help hud. i think we use any type of measure to get to the loopholes we have here. i think we are all very serious about this and i think that it was a serious first panel to try and find out through people that have been involved in this. so with that i would disagree with you. but i think that this has been a good hearing and i think the witnesses. they are very professional and i think this is been very helpful. with that this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
than 15 bipartisan house passed jobs bills that are gathering dust in the democrat controlled senate. there's no reason, not one, for senate democrats to delay action on these bills any longer. the house has been working all year on our plan for america's job creators. it's time for the senate to do their work. remember, although stalled bills have bipartisan support. some are even backed by the obama administration. so i urge the president to call on senate democrats to bring these commonsense bills to a vote in the senate. as long as these bills are stalled in the senate, i think it's unacceptable for the white house to be anything less than 100% engaged in the legislative process. the job numbers are out today and i think once again that we see that the unemployment figures in this country are still way too high. unemployment at 9% is
unacceptable. that's why we're here today again trying to tell harry reid, please join us and bring these measures to the floor for an up or down vote. if they don't pass, fine. what is harry reid and the democrats afraid of in the senate as far as our jobs agenda are concerned? the bills that would have on our jobs agenda are real concerns and address real issues that small businesspeople are facing. i was recently done in my district in richmond and held an event at a biotech park. the kind of issues that were raised there other issues that these bills confront. just yesterday, just yesterday we've had for this week, we've had for those and house having to do with access to financing for small businesses. that's what small businesses who are going well. they want more access to capital. what small businesses want in this country is less red tape in washington so they can go back continue to invest and create
jobs. so please, harry reid, just allow these those, these bills and up and down vote in the senate so people can see that washington is ashley working for their interest in to create jobs. >> as an individual that took a risk at age 20 to start his first company, i didn't buy -- i took my investment i had in the market, took the risk on microcredit i even refinanced the car i currently have. when i think today with a i could even do that, i could not. if you watch what has transpired on the floor. discard continues to grow. and, unfortunately, the backside is growing because the senate is not acting. as the leader just said we added four more bills that could help small business actually get capital to create new jobs. bipartisan bills. yesterday on the floor the two that we passed had more than 400
votes in support of it. i don't know what harry reid needs to even allow it to come to the floor but the american people can't wait, small business can't wait, and the jobs report shows one more time america is frustrated with what's happening in the senate. >> unfortunately, in the obama economy we're just seeing our 28th month where unemployment has been 9% or higher. in the obama economy, one in seven continue on food stamps. recently we had a study released this week from the world bank about doing business in the obama economy, america has dropped from third in 2007, the 13th. in the obama economy the federal
reserve just announced a downgrade for their economic outlook for both growth and for unemployment. no, we cannot wait. this isn't about the president's personality. it's not about politics. it's about his policies. his policies do not work. house republicans have a plan for america's job creators. and, unfortunately, -- bless you -- all of these bills continue to stack up like cord wood in the democratic controlled senate. a lot of our bills have to do with easing the regulatory burden on small business. it's not just me saying it. every single day we hear from our constituents. just last week i heard from don in garland texas who, talk about the presence health care plan status quo, we are giving up
this part of our business due to federal regulations. this is just one small example of how excessive government regulation is stifling business. only one person here will lose his job in a small company. that is a large layoff. the bottom line, in my opinion, the federal government is regulating small business out of business. mr. president, senator reid, we can't wait. work with us together on our plan for america's job creators. >> we continue to hear about the 14 million americans who are out of work. and just to put it in perspective, if you start the line in my state of washington state, it would extend all the way to maine. and in addition to that there is 9 million americans who are working part-time who would like to have a full-time job, or have completely dropped out of the
workplace. and while the president is out campaigning, the house has been busy legislating. we have been working on our forgotten 15 as well as other bills that would help get our economy going. one of our top priorities has been to reduce the regulatory burden on our businesses, as jeff was referring to. america has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. and in addition to the, the average small business owner will spend double that amount in complying with regulations as they will on the taxes. so we, this jobs report today underscores that we can do better, that we must do better and that we must do it together. >> questions? >> could you talk about -- >> i have a conference to run here in 10 minutes spent yesterday speaker boehner said he was nervous that you guys agreed $1.3 trillion in deficit.
should you be nervous, the civic many? >> you can ask him that question. i will say i just left a meeting with senator murray, and we continue to negotiate and women something to announce, you may not be the first people to but i'm certain you'll hear something soon. [inaudible] i haven't changed my position from day one. i approach this process with high hopes. i continue to have high hopes and tempered expectation. >> you talk about the need for finding common ground. you also mentioned that the debate on the debt ceiling this summer lead to a decline of consumer confidence. given the houses be scheduled for the rest of this year, is there a risk, problems in congress, failures will cause additional problems for consumer confidence? >> i think we have got to continue the work and try to find common ground now help our economy into the american people back to work. when you look out our plan, and
you look at the now almost 20 bills that we passed that would help job creation in america, almost all those pass with bipartisan support. many of them backed by the obama administration. it's time to continue to work together, find common ground, do with the american people expect others. >> you are saying your side is saying why don't you pass the bills we passed during the senate? another bill there, they say whitman, why can't we get things done there? the public looks like this is a shoving match between the two sides. wine is okay, why is your site and your reason better than the way they're trying to do it in the senate? >> the house has acted in a bipartisan fashion, now 20 times. and all we're asking for is some cooperation with other side. >> yesterday, these bills have been filibustered --
>> if you look at the bipartisan vote yesterday in the house, over 400 votes for these two bills that will help small businesses have access to capital. our founders gave us is a giant body in the middle of our government called for congress. 535 people. it's hard for everybody to get along, but i'll say this. on the house side we have worked together, democrats and republicans, to try to do the right thing every day. and we'll continue to do that. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] spent a brief news conference ahead of the meeting of the joint economic committee.
that's because of the unemployment number four october announced today. the associate press reporting hiring slowed in october as employers face more uncertainty over future economic growth. labor department saying the economy added 80,000 jobs in the month of october but the unemployment rate 9%. as we mentioned the joint economic committee will be meeting at 10:00 eastern. we'll have live coverage of that here on c-span2 when the gavel in. until, a look at the u.s. economy with the u.s. stands in the world, as far as the economy goes from this morning's "washington journal."ng. >> host: with e.g. 20 summit going on, and a summit meeting really overshadowed by the situation in greece. let's look at some front pages s haven't found including the globe in canada. you're at the brink the globe ann canada. a year at home, in pittsburg -- "the guardian" out of england
has this headline. you will see that many of the papers chose to feature the photographs of the leaders of france, sarkozy, a angela merkel of germany, and u.s. president barack obama. as we look at that, i would like to set the stage for the question this morning, which is -- the u.s. ability and interest in being an economic leader involving itself in global economic crises. here is the front page story in "the washington times" this morning that gets to the heart of this. this is a "washington times" story, written from cannes, where the g-20 is meeting.
possible effect on us. before we get to your calls, let me introduce you by phone, a writer for "the financial times" has been covering some of the situation with the euro. as we start our conversation with our viewers, tell us a little bit about your view of the u.s. role? guest: it certainly seems like for better and for worse, the united states is not really kind of the key player here at the eurozone -- i am sorry, at the g-20 meeting. a couple of reasons. the crisis is centered in europe right now. a couple of years ago we were talking about the fall of lehman brothers, the u.s. was sort of the locus of the financial crisis. now of course we are talking about europe, greece.
the u.s. is not really being looked at as the solution here, either. the europeans have been talking very much to china, brazil, and developing nations, the ones with the excess money at this point, and there have been active the suns -- discussions between france and china in contributing to the european bailout, barring european debt. in the u.s. is really taking on the role of kind of advisor, a middleman in the situation. i think those in the u.s. camp are not necessarily upset at that. they are glad to play that role instead of being the the focus of attention. host: jay carney at the white house said the 2000 wall street
crisis could provide insight on the steps europeans should take -- the 2008 wall street crisis. guest: certainly people look back at 2008 and 2009 and see the u.s. of dramatic steps. of course, some people think it should have done more. whereas, europe did not ask its banks to do that much in the wake of the crisis. they felt they had come out of the relatively unscathed. what happened was europe had been able to take advantage of what the u.s. was doing had the leverage, break up some of the , shuffles some of assets into other vehicles and stuff like that. now, a couple of years later, when basically it was governments that lends to banks,
backstop the banks, now the governments are the ones in trouble. it is where it europe is coming into crisis, the government's that are really the problem. they looked at what happened in the u.s. and they said, boy, if we build better but the banks at the time maybe we would not be in this situation with sovereign debt. >> last question. and quickly, so we can get to our callers, which is the president's view that europe presents a big economic headwind for the united states. how much could possibly the situation in europe affected the u.s. economy? >> i think it represents a drag on constance. the president feels the economy in the u.s. is not really so terrible when you look at the fundamentals, but that people are afraid to invest, banks are afraid to lend.
worries that some events in europe could basically -- pulling apart while the u.s. is trying to recover. host: thank you for talking to us, about the u.s. possibility to have an influencing or tempore enroll in the resolution. let me show you some of his paper's reporting on this. there is a whole special section in "the financial times" on what they call eurozone turmoil. this story is about whether or not greece may leave the bureau. above it, the nation's european destiny hangs in the balance. a question whether the fault can be avoided is one no referendum is able to answer. in addition to all of the
coverage of greece, at the bottom -- pressure on berlusconi over the increasing pressures on the italian economy as well. but as the to your calls and comments. manhattan. robb is a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i feel that unless we get our own house and order, just like an individual house has to get its finances in order, you are not considered a good credit risk, you cannot really assert yourself. everything we are doing, this in fighting in congress, is just, it is not take steps back but 100 steps back. the asian tiger countries are fighting an economic war with us. china is just eating our lunch. for example, with solyndra, which i am a stand some republican is going to make a campaign ad against obama for solyndra. i think the way china dumps
solar panels and the government supports that industry through all kinds of basically a legal trade techniques, we should have supported solyndra. we should of kept going to solyndra and gotten it out of bankruptcy. we should have given consumer incentives to buy their products. host: let us go back to the initial topic, the united states and its ability to influence. generally, are you happy with the more diminished role of the u.s. on the global stage or is there a regret the u.s. cannot play that role as much as it has in the past? caller: no regrets here. we are expanded militarily but under-expended economically. china is eating our lunch. today are in africa, they are getting natural resources, developing businesses, and they are not in the fighting about
republican, democrat, abortion nonsense. they are out there to make money and to give businesses to run strong. host: thank you for your call. next is chapel hill, north carolina. any attack, republican vin caller: thank you, c-span then i agree with the previous caller with a lot of his issues and points. americans need to have confidence in where we have come and what we are and where we are going to be later. i have great confidence in us. i think we are a great nation. i believe despite all of the disputes, i think we are all trying to take care of our families and the right way. i think the world has a lot to learn from us being we are in your country. i think we have provided a great example for diversity and having
a good family and particularly sending women to school here and allowing them to have families also. i think we have done a lot, more show than any other nation. now, that is my personal opinion. but i think as far as of having a global effect economically later, i think president obama listens to a lot of our foreign allies which may not necessarily make a better decision for us, and i feel that we should stay out of the middle east conflict because the children of abraham, the jewish people and arab people, they have conflicts of blood. this is not something we need to be concerned about because we are just not in that blood family, either. host: getting into other issues here. dennis tweets this. more from "the new york times" story. they write --
telephone call comes from greenbelt, maryland. caller: i believe america is a financial superpower and unfortunately there is a lot of the media effort to make america. it is not. but i agree with the previous caller that there are a lot a prom -- prop. -- positives that are not exercised. it spreading bad news, that is what the media believes cells. the fact that we are not a financial media is more indicative of the fact that our political leadership -- and that goes for republicans and
democrats, are spending more time being divisive van asserting leadership. that inhibits our ability to exercise the leadership which we are cable. that to me is the overall problem. host: thank you for your call. chris is a republican from new jersey. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to talk about the european debt crisis, and the american debt crisis, too. a lot of people ask themselves where this money come from, how does it create? it is overlooked. global financial institutions -- world bank, imf, federal reserve, and it all up for the operate under fiat currency and there is essentially a handful of people that create the money, that say how much money is in supply. for super duty with supercomputers and algorithms,
you can basically engineer and economy. every european country basically over each other money through debt. how is this supposed to happen? once one country starts default you will get a snowball effect. abubble global economy is a ponzi scheme with the central bank in the ponzi, making money on interest. how is this supposed to end? it will not get better. it is an unhealthy thing, especially when most of our growth comes from people being sick and the military. we are basically telling people to grow our economy. how is this supposed to happen? host: on twitter, liz smith also brings up the question of the u.n. does military from a different tack.
that is this morning in "the washington post." lancaster, pennsylvania. john is an independent there. caller: the united states combines a lot with london to basically eliminate government. and it is now the financial institutions in charge. the rule would government, and so they will the world. finance used to be responsible for about 10% of the economy and now it is up into the 30's. it has thrown everything off a bank. i agree with people who say the united states should take response will for the villainy, and the last caller was talking about central banks -- i would not call in a ponzi scheme, but it wrecked the world. you look at the economy's doing well, it is those who have not
been affected by the united states -- canada, china, other southeast asian places. so, the united states, they should back out for somebody who knows what they are doing and does not want to rob of the world. host: let's listen to a little bit of the president's from cannes and the g-20 summit. >> it is no surprise we spent most of our conversation focused on strengthening the global economic recovery so that we are creating jobs were our people and stabilizing the financial markets throughout the world. the most important aspect of our task in the next two days is to resolve the financial crisis here in europe. we also discussed the situation in greece and how we can work to help resolve the situation as well. the united states will continue to be a partner with the europeans to resolve these challenges. host: notes that the president said the u.s. would be a partner.
but idea of stabilizing the economy by putting money into what is a fallacy. we are four or five years later and would continue to see things falling. you have the federal reserve continuing to land at almost 0% to people like goldman sachs and the other four that crashed the world economy. the reason is, is they continue to hold the debt greece had. anybody who thought greece, we would allow them to claim bankruptcy, is living in la la land. as long as we continue to allow these financial people to pretend it is not theirs and to show that off on us and other smaller countries, or states, rather, we will be in the same place as in 2007 until we finally stop pretending we can stop this. since that of allowing it to just hit bottom and move forward. as far as a question as to whether and of the united
states should be a "economic leader." we have proven that we cannot do that because we continue to pretend that we can pretend that the debt is not there when it is truly there. host: bill from twitter writes-- "the washington post" has this perspective. writing from born as iris -- when most iras -- buenos aires.
next up is a call from that to rouge, louisiana -- baton rouge. caller: when i was a boy, an outlay used to say, the hand cannot hit what i can't see. i float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. we do not know who these people are who print the money. we do not know if they are part of the republic, the european banking system, and they just keep printing money and we can identify them. our constitution says congress is supposed to have the authority to print and regulate our currency. they did that for a reason, so we can identify who prints the money, who regulates it, and then we can vote them in or out if they did not do what the people will. that is the problem.
we don't know who these people are. they are not regulated in any way, not held accountable by anybody. i am not sure we are supposed to be a leader of the world. we need to leave their own country and stop worrying about leading the world. if we don't leave our own country and eventually we will fall into so much dead that someone will start calling the shots for on republican we will not be a leader. host: thank you for your call. next telephone call is from orlando. mike is an independent there. caller: good morning. thank you for the phone call. i agree with the previous callers, but i wanted to help you understand that we are billed on a pyramid system. this is the way the government runs. we are all part of it. we all want money. part of it is -- some people end up on top and some on the bottom head the u.s. -- on the bottom.
capitalism usually goes 250 years generally. we are almost at the end of the road. i think it was a good run for the u.s. the future as that will be a global economy. people saying i hate china. it does not matter any more. we are all used to the other. if we lose, we cannot pump the money just in the u.s. it is not realistic. it will be reliance on other countries and working together to try to make things happen. people also have to realize it is a population and a resource issue, a much bigger issue than we have seen in the future. we have seen a lot of jobs not be -- not being made. look of the population. where are we going to put these people? these guys are over there, take them out. where will we put them when they come back? education. master's degree is a new bachelor's. where are we going to put the kids when they come out of school? phd will be next. there is a big population issue
in addressing the economic power of the u.s. being at the forefront. i think it is going to be a global economy, all going to one nation, i think, $1. i know it sounds i've -- odd. host: here is covered from "the washington post" today. those are all the big stories from yesterday. but right below it, they talk about the g-20 confronting its own limits as it weighs its options. that is what we are talking about this morning with you, about the u.s. role as an economic leader, whether or not
it has waned and what influence it has with the economic situation unfolding in europe, as one example. emporia, kansas. phil is a republican. caller: how are you today? it is hard for most of us -- like the third line tranche and we feel powerless. what social needs in -- i see and the store fronts. i hear our local politicians working on projects and find out there are overruns that will cost us more money. then i hear the news on the world stage, and my wife and i had the board -- good fortune of being in greece several years ago and i saw then that there was a problem. the greeks all wanted to retire
at 50, they wanted to work a 30- hour week. i am thinking, wait a minute, it is sort of like walking around new york city when i lived there back in the 1980's. i walked by the panhandlers industry and i wanted to be compassionate, and i would also -- often been the money, and then i say -- think, wait a minute, get a job. it just leave me alone. i think that is the way most of the american public feels now days. the issue is going to drop and somebody is going to expect something from us and we will get a lecture about how we miss managed our affairs and now it is your turn to bail us out. i am not sure we feel so inclined to do that. that we want to tell the rest of the world -- look, i've got my own problems. use of yours, just leave me alone. i think that is the basic american feeling. whether it is right or wrong, i don't know. but i feel very tapped out and i did not feel any great
obligation to bail out europe. host: some more stories from the papers today. europe has a new central bank head. he made a move yesterday to cut the interest rates. this story describes it in the business section of "the new york times." and in their editorial page, kudos for that. from our viewers, an e-mail, and from dw in seattle.
that's a phone calls. next up is phoenix. stephen is a republican. at caller: i was wondering, simple thing we can do to make our economy better. you ever pull up to a stop light, and they will have -- one car will pull up and stop like about 100 cars and i am thinking of this is happening across the united the states every minute, we are losing a million gallons of gas every minute. i think we can do little fixes like that to help our economy. i think we are still a leader but if we did not start doing stuff like this -- i tried to contact people in charge of that and they do not seem to want to listen. and i have a reason or whatever.
we have the technology to fix that. host: let's talk about >> i am very pleased to stand in for him this morning. i would like to welcome commissioner hall back this month and also welcome at seeing deputy commissioner that calvin and dr. hare again at the table for the first time today. thank you for being here. appreciate it. dr. cauthen served as associate commissioner for employment and unemployment statistics from 1998 to september 2011 and other
senior positions at the bureau of labour statistics. in the past few weeks we've gotten several economic group were including today's employment report, which has shown a mixed economic picture. the data are better than a few months ago, but not strong enough to significantly bring down the unemployment rate. on the positive side, the 2.5% increase in gross domestic product in the third quarter was stronger than the growth achieved during the first half of the year, showing movement in the right appropriate direction. however, real disposable personal income decline in the third quarter, indicating consumers are continuing to feel the pressure of stagnant wages. the ism manufacturing index reading of 50.8% in october marked a 27 consecutive month of expansion in the manufacturing site there.
but this factor is so important to our economic growth, decelerated slightly from september, 51.6% in the reading. as today's employment numbers show, and economic growth is still not strong enough to make significant headway, cutting into the unemployment rate. more than nine quarters into the recovery, unemployment remains at 9%, officially 9.1% and more than 42% at the end cloyd has been out of work for six months or more. we need to move from discussion of the american jobs back to passing legislation that will help to create jobs and strengthen this economy. before i turn to today's employment report, i want to highlight a few actions we could say to bolster the economy. first of all, we should provide new incentives for small firms to hire. chairman casey has introduced
legislation, which create a one year quarterly tax credit equal to up to 20% of the total increase in employee wages. also, we should extend and expand the employee payroll tax cut, which is set to expire at the end of the year. this will boost demand, create jobs and strengthen our economy. we must support our state and local governments, which have been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers including teachers and first responders to meet balanced-budget requirements. that should take up legislation or to pass by the to crack down on china's currency manipulation and we need to strengthen u.s. manufacturing by creating a national manufacturing strategy that supports manufacturing companies and workers in our country. they're a number of other things we can say here, but i want to just wrap it up and asked
mr. brady versus statements. mr. brady, thank you. >> mr. hall -- commissioner hall, thank you for spending your morning with us as we review the employment situation for some time now is that the difficult job of being the bearer of bad news is many hard-working americans had just earthly spot good economic recovery. you'll be happy to know we don't shoot the messenger here in washington, at least not yet. i'd like to begin with potential hope for our economy filing to dismal quarters of anemic growth and a real gross domestic roddick routed annually to 2.5% in the order of this year. finally, america's economy is marginally larger than it was when the recession began in december 2007. unfortunately, that going for it looks less racy. ejections of future economic
growth for the balance of this year and next have been significantly lowered by the senate as well as economic organization. the turbulence from potential financial crisis in europe could still precipitate a double dip recession year i'm a very real threat which could've been avoided avoided had poor economic policies from the white house that resulted in a very weak and very slow recovery. equally troubling is the jobless recovery. more than two years after recession officially ended, they are 6.4 million fewer payroll jobs in america than when the recession began in more than 5.9 million americans are long-term and glory. the president's policies are simply not working. by comparison to the reagan expansion that followed the similarly 1981 in 1982 recession outperforms obama economy biometrics, including economic growth and job creation. the difference is that break
they can expansion occurred in a political environment that fostered private business investment and encouraged americans to work and save. president reagan's policy were favorable. in contrast, the american economy now conference policy headline for us every step of the way, president of on the congressional democrats increased, not decreased uncertainty. americans and american businesses face. this uncertainty is discourage businesses from making investment in new buildings, equipment and software that would create millions of new jobs and cause a rapid fall in the unemployment rate. instead, washington should create a political environment that incentivizes americans to work and save and incentivizes american businesses to invest. then, washington should get out of the way. this is the first implant hearing since president obama's approval for stimulus spending that would create debt, which
future generations of hard working americans would have to pay for. stimulus to is not paid for. and let billions more to the national debt than a strongly focused on creating taxpayer-funded jobs. not only can we not afford it, but is declaring it they should do stimulus bill. remember, we still have 1.3 million fewer american jobs than when the original stimulus begin. s. 1.3 million fewer americans working then when the stimulus begin. enough is enough. hard-working americans deserve a fresh start. america needs to grow jobs, not for the federal government. openly private business investment dries private-sector job growth. businesses make the outlook for the long-term, not just the next year. the president's proposal which even senate democrats quickly reject it seeks to spur investment tax reductions does little encourage businesses
monday increase essence of her time. rather than taking more of what americans are, our nation creates a simple fair tax code that increases the incentives for americans to work in safe from american business to invest. this requires a permanent reduction in effective marginal tax rates on both capital and labor. moreover, tax reform should help and not hinder american businesses who want to invest here in america. as i propose, washington should immediately lower the tax rate to allow american tax forms overseas to bring home profit so they can invest in america. a new jobs, new research and development, new expansions and financial stability. repatriation as it's called as a free-market stimulus of nearly $1 trillion that will create up to 3 million american jobs, increase federal tax revenues and boost the economy by between
1% in 4%. that is the seamless america can get behind. each present obama to join congressional republicans supporting a comprehensive bipartisan tax reform and results in a permanent reduction in tax rate. twice my lifetime makes him the benefit of such plans under kennedy and then under reagan. both interested in the american people. to put another way, place their faith in the marketplace which is nothing more than a collective judgment the american people as to where to invest their money. their sound economic policy field the booms of the 1960s in the 1980s and 1990s. entirely new industries kept our great nation first with patents, intentions or much parachute. president obama has a real chance to be a game changer here for a 60 seat transformational president. i need to do is follow his
predecessors. republicans in congress and are willing to work to create new jobs along the main streets across america appeared that, dr. hall, i look forward to hearing your testimony. [inaudible] >> commissioner hall, thank you very much. dr. keith hall as the statistics for department of labor department of labor. tos is an independent national statistical agency that collects processes analyze and disseminate the essential statistical data to the american public on the u.s. congress other federal agencies, state and local governments, businesses and labor. dr. hall served as chief economist at the white house council of economic advisors for
two years under president george w. bush. prior to that he was chief economist for the u.s. department of commerce. dr. hall spent 10 years at the u.s. international trade commission. dr. hall received his b.a. degree from university of virginia, ms and phd degrees from purdue university. dr. hall,.or galvin, dr. horrigan, thank you. [inaudible] >> put that thing closer. [inaudible]
hospitality continue to trend up over the month it since the recent launching or 22 and the added 344,000 jobs. health care employment edged up by 12,000 in october following a gain of 45,000 in september. the two-month average increase of 29,000 was in line with the industry's recent trend. in october, offices chugged 8000 jobs. construction employment was down by 29% in october i said in making the prior month. over the months movements occurred in non-residential construction industries. employment and other major or changed little in october. employment of government continue to trend down. state government excluding education law 16,000 jobs over the month. employment in both state governments and local government has been falling since the second half of 2008. turning now to measures from our survey of household, the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 9% in
october. the jobless rate has held from nine to 9.2% since april. in october there were 13.9 million unemployed persons persons -- little change in the prior month. yeah, definitely still not. okay, the number of persons jobless for 27 weeks ago but declined to 366,000 to 5.9 million or 42.4% of the total unemployed. there we go. >> i knew there must be a switch there. >> yesterday here the employment population ratio of 58.4% will october. among the employed, those part-time for economic reasons fell by 374,000 to 8.9 million. the labor force participation
rate is 64.2% as unchanged over the month. thus far in 2011 the participation rate has held it above 54%. among those outside of the labor force, persons either working or looking for work on the number of discouraged workers in october with 967,000 down from 1.2 million a year earlier. in summary, not foreign payroll employment continued to turn up in october. unemployment rate was little changed at 9%. our colleagues and i would be glad to answer your questions. >> anything else click >> no. >> just a couple of questions. first of all, how would you characterize the state of the labor market today?
>> well, the first thing and it is an important thing, there is continued job growth. in fact, since the labor market trough in safe february 2010 for march on, we have had continuous job growth if you take out the temporary effects of incentives -- decennial census workers hired and fired for the decennial. we've had steady job growth, it just hasn't been strong. i think i best characterization now is that we seem to be growing jobs around 125,000 a month. we have over the past year. that is job growth, but it's still not enough job growth to really start making headway. it is keeping up or close to keeping up with the population, which means it is not strong enough to start lowering the unemployment rate. >> as i know, prior to losing
jobs in august and september come the manufacturing sector added jobs for nine straight months and has been a source of strength for the recovery. in your view, how important is the manufacturing site or to employment and others that there is? and why do you believe the employment growth has slowed or stopped in recent months and manufacturing? and is it typical to see strong growth in a couple of months where there is no job growth and then, a resumption of the earlier growth? >> the manufacturing or has strong linkages to other sites varies. in particular, particularly with wholesale trade, management of companies that enterprises can the services to building hinterlands, chart transportation, drinking places at the top industries related to manufacturing. so manufacturing is important. it goes beyond just
manufacturing. i'm not sure i can tell you why employment growth has stopped. it did start to pick up again this month. i think the more remarkable thing to be honest is that it's growing at all because if you look at any recent recessions, job loss in manufacturing has not recovered. it just hasn't recovered it off her recent tax recessions. the fact we've had some job growth is encouraging. and you're right, in terms of the fluctuation of growth in non-growth is not uncommon. in any industry. i think what you see with manufacturing is just a variation in the growth and it's not really strong growth, but pretty consistent growth. >> yet, the fact of the matter is i think that the growth is very, very slow and it is still 9%. there's an awful lot of things that could be done that should
be done to try to stimulate this economy. if you look at different set there is, we are now more than two years into the economic recovery. but unemployment is still far, far too high. during the great recession, stretched and manufacturing sectors were hard hit ball education and health services added jobs throughout the recession and every month but one and that was march, 2009. in the past year, what are the fact is continuing to face weakness in employment and have been a set or showed his strength in the past year? >> by far the weakest set or continues to be government employment. over the past year, government employment has dropped by samarra for 300,000 jobs. that has been split between state, government and local government. a number of other industries
have had either little growth are a little job loss over the past year. for example, utilities information services, financial activities, and construction and other services are all industries that have had -- been relatively flat over the past year. the industries of the biggest job growth, professional business services have had over half a million jobs over the past year. education health service is mostly how service is has grown by over 400,000 jobs. that was my job growth in places like manufacturing. a couple hundred thousand jobs in manufacturing, leisure and hospitality job growth. so the strong growth anyway is not widespread, but a number of industries haven't had strong growth at all, but we are having a little growth in a couple industries. >> thank you, commissioner hall.
mr. brady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if you're one of the 25 million americans who are out of work and can't find a full-time job, today's numbers are desert him yet again. the commissioner at this month to rate as a net 80,000 job growth, how long would it take for us to return to the unemployment levels before the recession quiet >> well, the short answer is not her. to keep up with just the population growth, you probably need -- my estimate is around 130,000 jobs. at 80,000 are not even keeping up with population. over a long time. come you might see the unemployment rate edged back up. >> you make comments for the past year we are averaging less than 130,000 as well. if we looked at the past 12 months, the answers still with the -- at this pace never going to get back to the point before this recession began.
>> that's right. >> can i ask you about the number of workers in the workforce today? has recently hit 30 year lows. it's been a long time since we've had this percentage of people working in the workforce. it has ticked up very slightly here in the last month or so. do you expect that to continue? and isn't that one of the indicators of restoring a healthy economy that today we just don't see? >> yeah, i wouldn't want to speculate about expectations, but the point -- that is a valid point. i think the labor force is probably something i'm the order of 4 million below what it would be under normal times. and i think to get strong job growth, we'll have to see the confidence and the economy where people get back into the labor force and we need to see the labor force start to grow again
and that just hasn't happened. >> chairman, and of the vote is coming short period of to cut my time shirts and get more questions then. >> welcome. i always like to start with the good news. what are the bright spots in their report today? >> well, we do have job growth and we do have job growth in a few industries. we have manufacturing added some jobs in retail trade added jobs for professional business services, education, leisure and hospitality. we have had a pic back up anything contemporary health services. the reason i focus on not been set very often is a leading indicator of a pickup in job growth. and for a little while there, the job growth in temporary help services flattened out your week at and it seems to be picking up
a little bit. that's good news. the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged, but it did take down again. we said from 9.129.0. i'm not going to put a lot of stock into that because it's a very small change, but that could be an encouraging sign. >> this recession is set in some way scared or as does a man's recession because of the big losses we have seen in manufacturing and construction. so i am worried about how the employment gains for women during this recovery are doing, especially due to the losses in the state and local government, which you mentioned is roughly 300,000. can you tell me how women are faring in the past two years during this recession? if you have the number sign, if not and you can get it to us would love it. >> i can get you numbers. i can generally characterize it.
although this has been turned to a man's recession because so many more men ask jobs than women, women did lose significant number of jobs and that doesn't always happen. in the last couple recession scum of the employment didn't go down very much. the other end of that is in the recovery so far it has been mostly men in the recovery. there is been very few women reemployed in the recovery so far for exactly the reason you cite. in particular overrepresented in government, particularly local government. they've actually had fairly strong representation financial activities that hasn't recovered strongly. >> is your characterize and this is my last question for dr. burgess can get into questions. it's been cared riced also is accredit recession. how is this different from other recessions? reticular latecomer to another recessions have trouble with
access to credit? ways this could accredit recession? >> i think it is fair to say that the credit -- it's fair to say that the real depth of this recession has been buried deep in very long. it's due in large part to the credit markets. at least that's the way it appears to me. it is west bank said a probably great recession as opposed to a recession has been the credit markets. >> didn't other recessions have challenges with access to credit? >> not to the extent that this recession did. in fact, dashed >> the causes are different. what would you say is the cause of this recession? >> i think in the early stages it was -- what you might call a wealth effect. i think people lost housing value and they lost well done that is sort of started to cause consumer demand to drop off. but it really got bad when the
credit markets locked out. once credit markets locked up in businesses had trouble getting loans -- >> a financial crisis. >> yes, exactly. >> thank you. >> we've got about five minutes before the votes that are on the floor. do you have time to stay here for a little while? there are too those that will be right back after these vote? >> sure, absolutely. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so we have a sharp break in the hearing on the latest job numbers out today. committee members taking a recess for votes in the house right now. members are voting on reauthorization of the coast guard and changing regulations for a big yacht race in the house. you can see the houseflies anyway on c-span. we will be rejoining this hearing at the conclusion of those in the house. right now, look at job creation efforts in congress from today's "washington journal."
>> on your screen is friday morning as congressman jim jordan, republican of ohio, chairman of the study committee, which is more or less an in-house think tank for the republican party. ideas generator for the leadership. he is also a member of the house judiciary committee and a member of government reform and oversight committee. thanks for being with us. we want to talk jobs, but the republican study committee has been very strong about deficit reduction is for quite a while. i want to start by asking you about the deficit reduction super committee. other reports in the papers suggest they're at an impasse. what are your thoughts? >> guest: well, we hope not. we hope we are going to get spending, which every american knows we need to do. my biggest concern on the news reports from the speaker that some of the committee and some members of the overall congress are looking to raise taxes. i think that is a big mistake. we need to reduce spending.
i tell the folks back home where not one-to-one. with a $15 trillion economy and we have almost a $15 trillion debt. anytime you get in that range is very dangerous. the countries the club travel, greece, spain, portugal are where you put it in the opening remarks, the republican study committee has been focused on that for the last 11 months. we've introduced a budget that cut to balance within 10 years, the only one in congress that day. this number during the debt ceiling to we brought forth the balance and should cut spending a big way, capita as a percentage of our economy through the forward of focusing on giving to the states a balanced budget amendment requirement. so we've been focused on not that we will continue so that's what we need to do in order to make sure our country is going to be this great nation that we've got to enjoy, to make sure kids and grandkids have the same
opportunity. .. instead of going there for could find other areas to get the same amount are frankly more which is what we need to do i think members will be willing to do that but if it is just to kick the can down the road and not reduce spending at all that is a big mistake. >> host: your group has put forward a jobs program. at the heart of it what you think as a country needs as a space to create new jobs?
>> host: . >> guest: every speech i've given back home whether rotary club or in a meeting of the group of constituents of citizens and family members that first question i get asked is how money communities want the -- americans understand the tax code is way too complex not acod conducive to economic growth so there is -- is, need you think we need to regulate business every more? and every hand goes up and of ad of of course nietzsche that many to stop that. that may also ask, how many think we need a commonsense energy policy? this is not rocket science. the american people as with so many issues think if we get the president to agree we can begin to foster a climate that as i
said before is conducive to creating jobs in growing our economy. >> host: we pulled the numbers for unemployment in your own district which at the height of the crisis for 11.5% now down in the high nines. what is happened there to move the needle that much? >> guest: one thing is our district is diverse and that we have strong agriculture and part of that is agriculture driven and then as you know manufacturing is starting to rebound here. this is with several manufactures across our district and across our state. they'll tell me, in fact there was a headline in the daily news about eight or nine weeks ago front page said manufacturing jobs go on the bill. so there are manufacturers out there who are ready to hire in mansfield ohio a few weeks back and talking to the head of their manufacturing council. he said their 300 jobs waiting to be filled today in mansfield. if we could find people who are willing to come to work and who we could hire. they want to hire, so the reason
you see a little drop in at number in our part of the state is manufacturing is starting to rebound and of course we have had the strong years in agriculture. obviously it is still tough out there in construction and the contractor business and housing and that area, so that is the other thing that is holding the economy back. but it has been good in agriculture and starting to rebound in manufacturing. >> host: we would like to get your phonecalls and also your tweets if you would like to send your question in that way as well. we will put those addresses and phone numbers on the screen so you can get involved in our conversation with congressman jordan. if you if you see rebounding and manufacturing how is it happening in the absence of fundamental tax code reform or decreasing regulation? >> guest: again give points to just how dynamic the entrepreneurs and business owners in this country are. americans, even in spite of the policies can win just based on
this work ethic and the spirit we have in this great country so i think part of it is that but if we really wanted to unleash strong economic growth across all sectors then you would look at a plan like ours which says low on the corporate site for example. we said we are going to lower the corporate rate from 35 to 25 and allowed dollars allow dollars for big multinational companies and the profits they have another countries. we will allow the money to come back home and not be taxed again so we put in place the things that are good for business and then on the personal side because remember a lot of businesses pay their taxes via the personal rate. we moved to what we call the taxpayer choice act modeled after the plan that my colleagues like congressman ryan and congressman hensarling and campbell put together. let's go to a two rate system, 15 and 25%. let's give generous, dependent exemptions or deductions so that
it is a pro-family type tax code. let's get to a simpler model and simpler seems to be conducive for growing the economy and creating jobs and we think it makes a lot of sense on the tax side, not to mention the regulation and the deregulation side and the energy component as well. >> host: we are one year in two days out from the election. this morning governor romney has a piece published by "usa today" on his spending and debt truck ramp. this headline in "the washington post" campaigning in new hampshire romney lays out his reduction plan. what you think of the level of conversation and debate about jobs and the economy by the republican presidential? >> guest: i think it's healthy. mr. perry came out with a plan that sounds very similar to what we propose this summer that we call the cut, cap and balance and he calls the cut balance and grow. frankly in many ways similar to what we put together. mr. cain has really think gained a great deal of appeal with
republican primary voters with his plan. whether you like his 9-9-9 or not the fact that it is out of the box recognizes the fundamental fact that we disrupt the current tax code is very appealing. and all candidates are focused on this out of control spending we have so i think it is all positive and you are seeing every single candidate come up, but i think a plan that is pretty bold. >> host: former president bill clinton has a new book out and it's written by the associate press and published by "the washington post" this morning. it's called back to work, why we need smart government for a strong economy and former president clinton describes the state of the country is a mess, that's in quotes and largely blames the sentiment embodied in the tea party movement. because on to say you'll call eight years in the white house in glowing terms writing about how his economic policies helped create 22 million jobs and substantially reduce the federal debt. he strongly criticizes republicans for taking the country deeply into debt under
george bush's presidency. >> guest: this idea that more government involvement is going to help our economy, think about this. big government spending, big government regulation, big government taxes would get us out of this economic mess, for goodness sake it would have happened would have happened a long time ago because that's all the government has done for three or so what we wait for is a different approach. let's don't look for government to create jobs. let's look for government to set the proper framework and get out of the way of the jobs -- so the private sector can create jobs. the fundamental difference in the approach. mr. clinton seems to advocate more government which is again what we have done for the last three years and frankly i would agree with one part of president clinton's statement. we did spend too much money and have too much government in the less administration but this administration has taken a toehold they level. it's not like we can blame the other party.
the bush administration particularly in the last few years when they started tarpon everything else had too much government involvement that this administration is taking it to a holy level and that's why we have had this largest deficit in american history, $1.3 trillion. that is why this year and think about this fact. i give this at every single speech back home because it conveys the serious. this year we will spend $231 billion in interest payments. interest rates are white right now? a record low, historic low. they can go any lower. they are going to go up and if they go up modestly within 10 years we will be approaching a close to a jillian dollars in interest payments. if they go up dramatically we will be getting close to a trillion dollars in interest payments. within 10 years we will go from paying $231 billion in interest to paying more in interest than we spend on national defense. if you are a nation spending more to service that then you are to defend yourself how in the world you sustained out
model? that is why the republican study committee and the republican conference has been so focused on this congress reducing spending. >> host: let's get to calls. we are talking about jobs, the federal debt and the u.s. economy. marion is watching us in charleston south carolina democrat there and you are on. marion, go ahead please. >> caller: yeah, with all due respect sir, did you talk a good game, but the fact is it is only after our site came up with their solution. you guys have got to realize you are not the president. president obama is the president every time he comes out with a plan you know, you talk real clear and all that but that is generating from what we do. give the man a chance. he is the president, you know and it sounds good but you will
find out come voting time what is going to happen, okay? >> guest: you may be right. we have an election in a year and you are right. the american people will decide and forget about all the policies and how the people vote but i will tell you this the first years of this ministries and the president got everything you wanted. to get the stimulus package, he got tax increases in health care package. he got everything he wanted to this idea he didn't get to implement his policies is not true and frankly i would be willing to work with the president on some the things he said just this year. if you go back to january, in his state of the state address, or his state of the union address he talked about reforming the public tax code lowering the corporate rates, things that would make sense and be again help set a framework for job creation and economic growth. we are willing to work with the president on those kinds of things. i think we should reform the tax code and allow.-- dollars to come back from overseas.
we are all for that are willing to work with the president. we just want a president to sit down with us and let's get to work and doing those kinds of things. >> host: at the white house this week they released essentially a report card comparing the presidents job out, similar themes to the ones you are talking about and as you can see all the way down the scorecard is negative for republicans and jobs added and taxes for working families going up under republican plans going down under the white house, fewer teachers in the classroom doesn't help get construction workers back on the job. why are you sure that your plan will create jobs and the presidents won't? >> guest: as the american people because the present plan is the same old same old. we have done this for three years, more government spending raising taxes on certain americans all the things we talked about in the stimulus package and we saw how well that worked. so we have a plan and frankly it builds on what the republican
congress -- we sent 15 -- 15 different bills to the senate, things that would help on the regulatory side. every single business owner you talk to will tell you the word we have heard have for years for the last couple of years is the uncertainty that exists in our economy today. business owners are saying do you know what? i'm not sure this health care law will kick in and what it is going to cost me. they keep talking about, the president talks about raising taxes every single day. we are not sure about that. we keep having additional regulations and additional burdens added to us, so do you know what? instead of taking a risk we would normally help that would help us get out of this stagnant economy and grow jobs most business owners are saying i'm just going to wait. so we need to get rid of that uncertainty by saying we are not going to keep back regulations and in fact we will get rid of the ones that don't make sense. we will reform the tax code and have a commonsense energy platform. everyone understands that.
>> host: where you specifically on business taxes? the debate ranges all the way from corporations are unfairly tax and some pay too much and some pay too little to a flat tax proposal. >> guest: our plan goes to 25% and takes it from 35 to 25. instruct the standing committees in congress to look at those deductions, those exemptions that companies currently get to look it doesn't say which ones make sense and which ones we get rid of so we have moved to wrote lower that rate and focused on territorial systems and we say okay i will use the example of proctor & gamble because it is a big company headquartered in ohio that has operations all over the globe. when proctor & gamble makes profits in let's say india, they pay taxes there. if they want to then bring that money back to ohio or back to the united states and create jobs and do things with it invested here they are tax again here in the united states. we are saying you are tax over there and you bring it back, put it to work creating jobs.
>> host: just to understand your description, you look at those in sections that make sense and keep those, so it is not completely flat as you propose it. >> guest: the goal is to move to a flat rate for corporations. we leave that up to the experts in the energy and commerce committee. that is the appropriate agency and. >> host: this caller is debbie who is a republican there. >> caller: good morning. hope everybody's doing well. in my humble opinion, i am not a rocket scientist. i'm just an average american citizen, but i pride myself on having some common sense, and commonsense tells me that if it is the private sector that funds the public sector, we have to do what we can to strengthen the private sector. >> guest: well said. >> caller: so my point is, number one we need to go to a
flat tax. we need to get rid of the loopholes in the tax system, government needs to get out of the way of picking winners and losers are go that way we can all be winners and if spending more government money was the answer -- my highway is not paved in gold so my point is, we have got to put out the open for business sign here in the united states, and do what we can to help the private sector made jobs for all of us. thank you and have a blessed day. >> guest: thank you. i couldn't have said it better. that is something that is happening across the country. americans are so frustrated with the current, the current tax code. and they do it from a fundamental fairness perspective the fact that we have most
numbers are around 46, 47% of the population not paying income tax. that others americans. they think everyone should be contributing and then you have on the other and, for whatever reason you have general electric's second quarter not paying taxes and any tax code that allows those things to happen is fundamentally unfair and we need to reform it. debbie said it better than i think any elected official can say it, so again i think moving towards a flat or simpler system is exactly what is needed. >> host: next up is a call from washington d.c.. this is stephanie. stephanie or on with mr. jordan. go ahead these. >> caller: everybody keeps putting out this 47% not paying taxes. have you ever done a program that tells you, that breaks down exactly what that 47% is? i would really like to know. and also, i have a pro-republicans thing in an
anti-republican and independent. first of all the pro-republican. everybody needs to look at buddy roemer, 2012. the republicans are desperately trying to keep him out of every debate, and the guys -- even though he has 7% approval down there in florida, the chairman down there automatically cut him out. everybody look at buddy roemer 2012 and see why they are cutting him out. >> a question meant for the congressman? >> caller: regulation congressman, regulation equals rules and laws. people wonder why nobody from wall street went to jail. because they did away with regulation and that is why you keep wanting to do away with regulation, because if you have rules on the books and laws that people can -- break they can go
to jail. isn't that correct? >> guest: no. you can overregulate and make it erred in some and the dollars will have to be used to comply with federal regulations the paperwork and everything else that is there and when you do that, there is an opportunity to use that, use those resources to create jobs. i will give you a great example. a great example of regulation that did make sense and has actually been repealed. in the democrat signature piece of legislation in the last congress, the health care law, there was a provision that 1099 provision which would be extremely onerous on small business owners and businesses across the country, and everyone understood this. this was ridiculous and even though it was contained in the signature piece of legislation for the other party it was repealed as people said this is a regulation that is going to hurt job creation and job growth and the democrats will come together and get rid of it. to say that government says
regulations will hurt job growth. of course we do and all you have to do is talk to small business owners in your state in my state and across the country and they will tell you the things we have to do -- i had two good friends of mine, brothers who are in manufacturing and they said to me, we were talking one day and they said, the one guy said jim, the thing that frustrates me, i love being in business but the thing that frustrates me as being an employer because of all the things you make me do talking about government, the government makes me do when i hire someone and that is what we have to understand. when people take the risk to hire someone they're all kinds of things you have to comply with that make it difficult for them to do the act of hiring someone and giving them the opportunity to create a job. >> host: we were talking about your proposal for corporate tax rates. the joint committee on taxation released a report this week. a report capped out on gop efforts to cut corporate tax
rates without increasing deficits. the report from the chief congressional scorekeeper cast doubt on republican efforts to cut the tax rate to 25% without increasing the u.s. budget deficit for shifting the cost to other taxpayers. it is scrapping almost every existing corporate tax break would generate enough revenue to lower the tax rate to 20% according to the joint committee after was requested by democrats on the house ways & means committee and provided to -- >> guest: again when you look at something in a static growth and we are going to do this here in lower the rate here, i think you have to remember our economy is dynamic and every time we have engaged in lowering the rates on the personal side and frankly on the corporate side, over time, you get economic growth which then brings in additional revenue to the treasury so i think we have to look at that concept when we are thinking about tax reform. >> host: next call for you
from bonnie leigh, washington. early morning out there. this is barbara, democrat. you are on. >> caller: good morning and thank you for. i am one of the 99% and i want government for the people as it was originally designed. we don't want a plutocracy. we don't want unelected people like the cook brothers and grover norquist setting policy for this country. now, mr. jordan, think about this fact. we have more poor and hungry americans in our country now than we have ever had before. we need revenue. think about there and certainty. think about the people who can't feed themselves and take their kids to any social events or have them play in sports because they have no money. this is who needs the revenue. the people need the revenue, not all the rich people, not the 1%
of the 99%. >> guest: barbara visit party you support has controlled all the government until 11 months ago they controlled all the government. since the election of scott brown they had a supermajority in the senate so they could pass any laws they want so why is that the case? >> caller: . >> host: but may go back to your first-aid men about the importance not to raise taxes. number of your colleagues as you know this week 40, a member of your group joined 60 democrats suggesting all options need to be suggested for the super committee. have they broken ranks with you? how do you feel about that? >> guest: i know what democrats mean by revenue and what a lot of the folks in town mean by revenue. they mean tax increases and i'm strongly opposed to that route. i seem that some of those members when they are talking
about revenue they are not talking about tax increases but i'm very nervous that there is, there is a will around here for a firm to, by some, to look attacks increases in the super committee report that is due in just a few weeks. that is the exact wrong approach in my opinion, to add additional uncertainty to business owners out there that we are going to increase the tax burden is exactly the wrong way to go. >> host: is that the speaker who might be willing to accept that? >> guest: the speaker has been strong with this. the whole leadership has been strong in saying they're not going to support tax increases. this was an issue that was raised then. there was talk of revenue from the other side, and our team was very strong in saying we are not going to raise taxes so i don't anticipate a tax increase but i am concerned obviously by the talk this week by both the letter signed by 100 members of congress that seems to indicate
some would be willing to entertain tax increases and frankly the report earlier this week, the group of six and a group of 12 that talked about at least the willingness to consider tax increases. >> host: we are speaking of speaker john boehner. politico has -- house speaker john boehner still searches for keys to his house and his suggested house speaker john boehner's mantras for how should work its will telling it his will and are so often at odds. the speaker, members of your own party within the republican conference. how is he doing as the speaker? >> guest: he is the toughest job in the town. here he is the speaker of the house and he has got a fairly diverse group of 240 some republicans. i think he is doing a great job. he has to deal with harry reid and ps2 deal with the white house so it is the toughest job
in town and it's certainly not easy but i think he is doing a good job. >> host:>> host: does your friep with ohioans give you a special dear to him? >> guest: he will listen to any member who wants to visit with him. he is very good about that. the thing i appreciate a good deal about the speaker as well as the openness of the process. if you go back to the first bill we dealt with in congress, h.r. 1 which was a continuing legislation for a budget bill i forget how many hundreds of amendments. open processes allowing members to take their best idea and come to the floor and offered as an amendment and vertus debate in the process. that is the weight is supposed to work. members who represent over 700,000 people are supposed to come here with their ideas and take their best shot. he has been very receptive to that process throughout his tenure as speaker. >> host: we have five minutes left. our next caller is from texas, are dell, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. surfers i would like to ask you did you sign grover norquist's
norquist's -- [inaudible] for those who didn't know that was a pledge that republicans made that no matter what, they wouldn't raise taxes. >> guest: i think some democrats find a too. >> caller: let me finish. >> you can see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 eastern on. we are returning live to capitol hill for coverage of the joint economic committee meeting on the latest job numbers, the employment rate dipping from 9.1 to 9% and committee members this morning are looking at the report. >> thank you for everything you are doing. i want now to ask mr. mulvaney if he has some interesting questions. [laughing] >> i have questions. i don't know if they are interesting or not. >> thank you mr. chairman. commissioner hall, is it possible, you hear a lot of discussion in this town as to
what life would have been like with or without whatever it is that we do speaking of the circumstances with or without the stimulus. is it possible to estimate what the unemployment rate would have been without the stimulus program? >> yeah, generally what we do is sort of reality-based, so what we are doing is we are trying to give your best picture where the economy is. our surveys really aren't designed to sort of get reasons for things from people. especially our staffers so there is really no way for us to collect data on what would have been. without the stimulus or without anything really. >> the cbo recently put out a report that said the unemployment rate would have been between .321.1.higher than
it otherwise would have been. are you familiar with that report at all? >> i have some notion of the methodology that they have used and sort of how they are arriving at that number. >> do you think it is fairly sound being familiar with their methodology? >> it is really sound in the sense that it is using common methodology that the congress use and what they are essentially doing is they are taking estimates of the impact, things that happen in the past, government spending has had in the past and sort of applying it to the current situation, doing it that way. the difficulty of that of course is it is a model estimate and it really is based on assumptions and is how the economy works. so, while the methodology is fairly standard, again it is not
really giving you anything like what we give you with the employment numbers. >> okay. if you take their numbers, 9.1% this morning, is that where we are? >> yes. >> according to them it's between 9.4 in 10.2, that is there range, .3% to 1.1%. are there any set of circumstances, any set of reasonable assumptions that anybody could come out and say the unemployment rate today would be 15% but for the stimulus program? is there any way in any reasonable analysis you could get to that number? >> i don't know. i don't want to try to characterize that. it is making assumptions that the economy was going to get a lot worse than it did get and a lot worse than anybody was
forecasting. so in that sense, it is a stretch. >> have you seen any scientific or educational or intellectual studies that have justified a claim that the unemployment rate would be 15% today before the stimulus program? >> the work they can be done is similar to what the cbo did and that is with the model and with some assumptions about what they believe would be the typical effective government spending. >> have you seen any reputable studies that you believe or that are that would show the unemployment rate today would be 15% for the stimulus program? >> no, but i have not looked and i'm not sure i would call -- is that the cbo estimating that? [inaudible] >> i have not looked at that study. >> do you think there is there's a steady? >> i really have no idea of.
>> but you had never heard of any study that says unemployment would be 15%? >> no but we are pretty focused on the real data. >> i am focused on the real data as well and i'm wondering if this has anything to do with real data. i yield back the rest of my time. thank you. >> the regulation between -- between regulation and job loss. understand there are a lot of different views as to why the labor market has been slow to recover. some point pointed to weak overall economic growth. some say there's too much uncertainty and that is preventing firms from hiring. others say there is too much regulation. regulation. i saw a piece recently in "the new york times" which referenced
data bls collects on why business carries out mass -- interestingly enough government regulation was listed by businesses as a reason for the layoffs. just .2% of the time in the first half of 2011, just to point -- 2% of the time in 2010 in 2009. by contrast lack of demand was given, lack of demand specifically given as the reason for 29.7% of layoffs in the first half of 2011, 30.6% in 2010, 39.1% in 2009. so other surveys by small-business groups get similar results. i wonder, have you seen any data to suggest regulation is interfering with hiring?
>> i am not sure too much of our data addresses that point. it's sort of gets back to the issue of we collect the data and we don't do a lot of things that would tell us why things happen. we don't ask establish or's. the study you are referring to actually is based on bls data. we have something called mass layoff statistics program and what we do there is any time there are 50 unemployment, initial unemployment claims over a five-week period we call that a establishment and verified they laid off 15 more workers in a month and we call that and we can ride -- defined that as a mass layoff. we send them a questionnaire and ask why. the data you are quoting is from this program, and so for these mass layoffs, we had about 18 mass layoff in 2010. some of them sided government
regulation as the reason. so, while that is true in this does give you inside, one thing to sort of keep in mind is smaller events would not be captured there and there would be no effective regulation on job growth or bringing back job growth or something like that but this does give you some information. it is just sort of limited. other than that i don't think we have a lot that informs you about regulation, regulations impact on employment. >> mr. burgess. please. >> thank you. commissioner hall, we talked a moment ago before we broke about the manufacturing there and we are beginning to see some upticks there and the influence of other sectors on the
manufacturing sector particularly interested in i guess what is broadly characterized as, in the mining which would include the oilfield expansions and some of the bright spots in the country are areas where domestic production of oil and natural gas has really come forward in a big way in literally the last decade, over the last 15 years. but do you have any thoughts on the barnett shale where i live, eagle fort shale in south texas or in pennsylvania, the effect that the development in these areas has had not just on the mining sector but on the manufacturing sector? >> yes. i don't know a lot about the specifics but i can tell you that the mining your has been somewhat recession-proof. we need to have job growth in
mining throughout the recession and this month we had about 5000 jobs in mining. it is not a big sector and there is not a lot of employment with a have been supporting employment. in places like, you mention north dakota. north dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and it seems to be largely based on growth in mining. that may be related. i just don't know enough about the specifics. >> there are of course concerns about having all the necessary environmental controls and i don't disagree with that, but i will just tell you in north texas where the barnett shale is where i live, we found out about the recession a year after it started, december 2007 i believe is when the economist -- the
recess and naturally. we were probably january 2009 before it really became evident in that part of texas that in fact there was a problem. i don't think the entire economy can recover on the strength of this one sector so i agree with you that the numbers compare to the overall economy may be small. but i'm certainly concerned about some the things i've seen on the regulatory side reticular levy environmental protection agency would be damaging and i think this has to be part of our recovery. last month, or really just a week and a half ago i did an economic development study. we had some business owners and we actually had richard fisher who is the president of the dallas federal reserve bank, and talk to us. it was fairly revealing.
those american workers, small businesses will business as well as large publicly traded or private were immobilized. not because they do not wish to go in not because they can't access cheap and available credit rather they simply cannot budget or manage for the uncertainty of fiscal and because tory policy. is that a statement that you would ra with? >> yeah. i think i would like to not comment. >> okay. i think it hits right on the mark and i think he gets to the bigger question. heery are receiving numbers in and the numbers today look better than they have in previous months but by your own admission at this rate of growth to get back to pre-2008 levels, we are not going to get their, not just in last month but if you rounded out to the past 12
months, three years into this administration following the trajectory we don't get back to pre-recession levels. but i guess the bigger question is, heads of small-business owners as part of that development summit kept talking about the crushing burden of paperwork and the uncertainty regarding financial regulations health care health care regulations and environmental regulations and it is no great surprise they are in a hunker down mode because they just don't know what the future is going to bring. i hope when we have these visits in the future that you bring good news to us but honestly i think we have got a lot of work to do on the regulatory and here so thank you mr. chairman and i will yield back. >> i know if otis on sauer will be brief. commissioner you -- at last year's rate of 125,000 jobs we live really will never get back
to a pre-recession level. don't we need about 250,000 jobs a month to really begin whittling down the unemployment rate and even then with a number of years, roughly two or three years do you think at at that heightened rate for us to really start to bring this down? >> yeah. actually i like your number of a quarter million jobs to start to make headway but even at that rate, it may be more than three years. it may be longer than that. >> i want this economy to recover and i think the obama economy has been disheartening for people. we have got to have a fresh start. let me ask you this. recently senate majority leader reid made the comment that jobs on main street are doing fine. it's the government jobs that you worry about. but i took a look at your numbers for the past three years
since this recession began and it appears we have lost more than 4 million jobs along main street and have lost a little less than 700,000 in government jobs. and we have a chart that shows here what the difference is and obviously the private sector job losses has been considerably greater than that within government. so this sort of fact-checking the senator's comments, is it accurate to say that in this recession, public sector jobs have been hit harder by this downturn than private-sector jobs? >> no, it isn't. the private sector has been hit very hard by this recession. as we go forward and look for a way to get out of this, out of the obama economy, is in its private sector growth that traditionally has brought us back into a more stable economy and creates a sustainable
recovery i think we are all hoping for? >> the private sector has most of the jobs, and that is absolutely true. if you want to look at the health of the economy, you should look at the private sector growth. >> you bring us some good news going forward so thanks. >> very briefly to follow up on what the chairman just said. 250,000 jobs per month is the goal that i think we all agree that more is better and less is worse but with 250 the target, how many times since january of 2009 as the economy created more than 250,000 jobs in a month? i only have one in front of me which i know in the spring of 2010 but my data doesn't go back to the beginning of this administration so since
january 2009, how many times has the economy created more than 250,000 jobs in a month? >> i see two months but to be on this honest boast of those months -- oath of those months were hiring for the -- if you take out the census effect i'm not sure we had any months where we had a quarter of a million jobs. >> since january 2009 since the obama administration took over we have never generated 250,000 jobs on a monthly basis on a permanent basis when you make exceptions for the -- >> i don't have the exact numbers in front of me but i believe that is correct. >> to follow up mr. brady regarding federal hiring we heard interesting testimony yesterday in the oversight government regulation. the committee said that, mr. vice chairman, there is 12%
more federal workers since the recession began. there are 14.8% more and 275,000 more workers in the executive branch and 100,000 more civilian workers in the department of defense since the recession began so i was glad to hear you say you think the private sector has taken it on the chin more than the private sector but if you go back to the beginning of the recession they're more government workers at the federal level than there were when this began. thank you commissioner and thank you mr. chairman and i will yield to mr. burgess the balance of my time. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
>> correct. [inaudible] >> no, the government jobs and the health sector and government jobs. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> that is a good question. my recollection is that it has been rough. i don't think it's slowed down but it didn't slow down by much. i will have to get back to you on that for sure but i think it has been pretty much pre-recession growth. okay, sure. [inaudible]
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> not directly but i think we have it ready good proxy and that's by education. the educational levels really are very closely related to income and wages, unemployment rates and the higher the education the better off we are so the are a significant difference. if you give people with less than a high school diploma the current unemployment rate is 13.8% and it is much higher than
shortly after the labor statistics numbers were released to republican leaders held a briefing on the downturn in the unemployment figures. you can see that briefing on our web site at.org. more live coverage coming up on c-span2 at 1:00 p.m. eastern. republican presidential candidate mitt romney and herman cain will address the fifth annual summit of the conservative group, americans for prosperity foundation.
>> would you continue your statement police? >> i'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over if that's your decision. >> he was u.n. ambassador for president kennedy during the cuban missile crisis. a former governor of illinois and twice ran as the democratic nominee for president and lost. adlai stevenson is the feature this week on series the contenders from the stevenson family's home in libertyville annoyed live at 8:00 eastern. for preview including more ofpp the speeches andp other videos p to our special web site for the series.org/the contenders. >> i think obviously it is usually helpful but reading a long book can be an education. is good to see what can be done wrong that you can avoid your
cell. >> i think every young writer should remember publishers out there desperate for a good new book to publish and an exciting new author to publish so there should be enormous hope for what is yet to be done. [applause] >> now former nbc nightly news anchor tom brokaw on american politics journalism and the economy are good during a speech of the national press club yesterday he reflected on his career in journalism and the changes he is seen in the world and the various challenges facing the country. this is about an hour. >> more than once on those and our guest speaker today like fdr, is one of those. he has spoken at our luncheons and as is a winner for lifetime achievement for the state award. and if you'll indulge me for a brief personal story i have him
to tank or blame for this grand journalism because it was during the administration of president for that i sought to network stars, tom brokaw and the husband of our guest today, john cochran, holding a presidential news conference in topeka kansas where as an impressionable youngster i became fascinated with the work of broadcast news and they were camped outside the ballroom at the ramada inn and i decided to get into the business anyway. seeing that i set my sights on the business and in well ahead of you to tank over that, not so sure my wife and say the same thing. for decades now americans have had breakfast with our guest, perhaps 10 or even a nightcap. he hosted "the today show" and was of course a longtime anchor of nbc nightly news and frequently serving as the host a primetime teachers specials. he is here today to talk about his new book, the time of our lives come examining the past, present and promise of america. he will give us his unique perspective on his current point of history and tell us what he thinks about the great divide in
our political climate. many of you are familiar with his remarkable story. a native of south dakota, he married miss south dakota and they will soon celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. his first tv news gigs were in iowa, nebraska and atlanta. he joined nbc news in los angeles in 1966 as a reporter and would anchor it k. in b.c.. we are told he has covered 11 presidential elections. he was nbc's white house correspondent during watergate and pivoted with ease to host "the today show." in 1983 he became the anchor and managing editor of the nightly news where he remained until 2005. having been named one of the most trusted people in america according to polls you was asked by nbc to step back in the spotlight to "meet the press" after tim russert's tragic sudden death during the 2008 election. he has won every major award in broadcast journalism and as we say members of our club know well he is the winner of the four state award given during a
memorable evening in 2003, the same award given to jim lehrer a few days ago at this very podium. with his trademark midwestern style not unlike that of pbs's walter cronkite our guest is a natural storyteller weather on the air or between the covers of a book. in 1998 he had a breakthrough achievement with this popular book, the greatest generation and has been ranked among the best american cultural histories of the last century and he is easily emerge from a career capturing history on the fly to one taking a longer view. other successful books have followed. while remaining present on the air for nbc news. while he has been less than complimentary about baby boomers he has remained appropriately neutral on politics. several years ago rush limbaugh referred to our guest as a self-hating liberal. [laughter] while in his new book in this is the classic response he says rush of all people should know that those of us who make a very good living listening to the sound of our own voices are
incapable of self-hate. [laughter] we think we are grand. it is not often that we have the opportunity to have such a prestigious member of the national press club address our audience and we are pleased he is willing to return once again. lees give a warm national press club welcome to mr. tom brokaw. [applause] >> thank you very much. the other piece of that was the response to rush is that when i said we think we are grand, i included rush and that's, which is true. it is grand to have you here. your grandfather was not only a great friend, but he was the godfather of a small club to which i belonged belong where people who were once the anchors of the evening news. although this audience knows your grandfather very well i want to share with them a story about your grandmother who was one of the most favorite people
any of us could have had the privilege of knowing and i'm sure you would agree with me. iowa said that walter steered a steady course in part because he had as his first mate that the cronkite. if there is an oxymoron and american life it is humble anchorman. we just don't exist quite honestly. [laughter] we count on our wives to kind of let the air out of us at the right time. her idol was betsy cronkite for a couple of reasons. one was when the cronkite moved from a townhouse where they lived for a long time to a high-rise in new york after about three months, that he said to a friend of hers, you know i kind of miss the old place and a friend said empathetically, well of course betsy, he raised her family there and you have so many good years. betsy said it is has nothing to do with that. we had a backyard where i could put all those plaques.
[laughter] walter and betsy and meredith and i were at the kentucky derby one year and it is kind of a death march when you have the visibility. we were there for our affiliated stations. it begins with drinking on thursday morning in by saturday night we were at a black-tie dinner and walter came over to me and said how do we get out of here? i said well i have two friends who have always wanted to take the two of us in a hot air balloon and he can only do that at dawn so we would have to leave now. he said go make the arrangements. so i did and it dawned the next morning we were out on the outskirts of louisville. walter and i get ready to get into the basket to liftoff in the hot air balloon and half the town showed up in tuxedos still with champagne glasses. [laughter] walter god in his basket and i got in mind and we lifted off and we had two-way radios. the first voice i heard was betsy kohn cried saying walter, we are down here on on the ground dividing up your things. [laughter] do you still want that burial at
sea? [laughter] and then my final favorite story about them came after walter retired for a couple of years and was in yellowstone national park narrating a documentary. standing in line like an ordinary citizen with this woman standing behind him and behind the woman was betsy cronkite. the woman standing behind walter kept looking at him and she couldn't contain herself and tapped him on the shoulder. he turned around and she said to him, has anyone ever told you you you look just like walter cronkite did before he died? [laughter] walter turned around and began to clear his throat and now the woman is in a mild panic. she turns the women behind her not knowing it is betsy kohn cried and says to betsy, walter cronkite is dead, isn't he? [laughter] and betsy looked out for a
moment and as you will well know his grandmother had a wonderful crooked smile and her eyes would crinkle. she smiled and looked to him and said you know if he is and by now the old sob probably ought to be. [laughter] that is part and parcel of what made walter a great man is that he had someone who kind of steered him on a steady course. i will take a few minutes of your time and talk a about how he wrote this book and b about perhaps what unites so many of us at the national press club. i have been at this for half a century this next year. my marriage coincided with my beginning as a journalist and in a very modest way in omaha nebraska. of course and a half century i have one they latta really both professionally and personally. i have a wonderful family and we have had an extraordinary life, all of us. i have daughters and now for
granddaughters. we only make girls in our family. i have had the privilege of a journalist to cover stories in the police precincts of omaha and atlanta all the way to summit meetings in the kremlin and in china. in the course of that time i have never lost my sense of wonder at the change we have all experienced. and that change was for me in some ways and is still in june of 2009 when i was interviewing president obama as he was preparing to go to the 65th anniversary. i spent a fair amount of time they're given the fact that i wrote about the greatest generation. i was waiting to interview the new president of the united states our first african-american president thinking about all that changed that i have witness. i was born in 1940.
transmission abilities come the president said i know, tom. i watched you. i was in moscow at the time. [laughter] i walked away from that interview trying to take the measure of all of it shaves that a.i. had witnessed in which all been through. it began to resonate as we look to make grandchildren. i wondered 50 originality was say about their time. most of what they would be saying about what we left them, what we created for them. as many of you in the audience know when you begin to write about, you think you have a firm idea of where you are going to go, but she find the journey really becomes an adventure because with every page as you finish it, you have new thoughts about the direction you want to go. they spoke for me it really came down to two questions. one was, what happened to the america i thought i knew?
and the second question came from people i encountered as they went across the country, who would say to me, mr. brokaw, do you think my children will have a better life than i've had? i worry that they will not. that question is at the heart of the american dream for so many families. they come here, hoping to succeeding generations will have better lives than they've had. certainly that was the case of my family. my father and father came out of the depths of the great depression. my dad dropped out of school when he was 10 years old to go to work for a swedish homesteader because he was a large, strong boy and became a master operator of heavy construction equipment and can find work but it was not easy. my mother's family farm dried up and blew away and received by the bank in 1832. she was 16 when she graduated from high school, one of the brightest women i will ever know.
college costs a hundred dollars a year there was no way she could possibly go. she wanted to be a journalist it turns out. so she's lived out her life to remain so many ways it has been a guide. i thought about the change in their lives and then the change in our life and then my parents always say for me to go to college in hope that their sons would have a better life than they will. when i began to read the book, i thought maybe we had to be calibrate that question because they think at the root of it historically has been the exit tatian at succeeding generations will live better economically. they will make more money, has better homes, more cars, more choice. obviously there is a finite capacity for arafat. so what i attempt to do in this book in many ways is get us collectively, wherever we are
from, whatever we believe politically or religiously or culturally, to kind of have a national dialogue about what it is that we want to leave behind. and i think he began without question of what kind of values do we want to leave behind? what kind of economic opportunity in the work place to relax and leave behind? how do we expand the tolerance that took such a quantum leap forward as dr. king and the civil rights movement. how do we fit into a smaller planet be so many more people? how do we use this transformative type knowledge sheet available to us all at our fingertips now to make this planet a better place? and who is in that fashion that i launched this both. i became really with the need to
do something desperately about american education. what is most encouraging to me is that that is a subject that is now on the table. and for too long, we had kind of a two class system. those who could afford to move to the suburbs and send their children to private schools. the rest of america in the inner-city and lower parts of the socioeconomic classes were stuck with the kind of one-size-fits-all warehousing education. education is the currency of the 21st century. at least we are talking about it in here in the nation's capital attempting to do something about it across the country. but we've got a long way to go. in china, every eighth-grader is required to take math, physics and biology and in america, only 18% of high school students take those courses. as long ago as 1996, is
reporting from seoul south korea during the olympics. because he did it in the middle of night to meet the time requirement, time change requirements, i was there before dawn on a rooftop overlooking the courtyard of a junior high. before the sun came out, that courtyard was filled with the laser flashlight. i looked on the first and couldn't figure out what is going on. so i went down to look closer and there were students in the courtyard doing their homework by flashlight, waiting for the doors to open so that they can improve themselves. this is a country that in the 19 fit these was ravaged by war and had a kind of stone age agricultural economy. now it's one of the industrial powerhouses of the world. the president of korea had a meeting with president obama a year ago when president obama in and conversations with tommy about your challenges and
education. the president of korea look to benefit my greatest challenge greatest that the parents want more for me, not less. so i began to address that in this both in the row we can all play in it and a variety of ways. those of us of my generation not to be thinking more actively about becoming tutors and becoming involved in the schools not just at grandchildren, but in our communities. there's heartening developments i think. i think the place of charter schools is important. i believe the combination now of what i call public-private partnerships in many communities for companies getting involved because that's going to be their workforce and their customers trying to bring new resources to teaching. we are finally beginning to have a national debate about what is in effect a teacher and how do you build an effective school system and make a transition them into what i call proportion in our lives. i decided fairly active
discussion on npr this morning in which a caller called in to challenge me on the housing crisis, st. louis entirely the fault of wall street. wall street paid an enormous role in the housing crisis. but it wasn't on wall street. people have to accept personal responsibility when they sign on the bottom line for a mortgage that they can't afford. here in washington, fannie mae and freddie mac drove a lot of a stampede to people thinking that they could afford homes. homeownership would be part of the american dream, but unfortunately it bored a lot of the financial reality that comes with that. and it continues to be a heavy burden and economic recovery in this country. and on this subject that would be of interest to so many of you is this extort you change going on in the profession which i spent most of my life, journalist on. i liken it to the second big bang, the impact of this new
technology. we have created an entirely new universe out there and we are at a moment trying to determine which of these planets will survive and which will go too close to the sun, which will merge with others to support life as we have known it as journalists and how will it finally worked up out so there is a kind of orderly universe which we know were going. purebred audiences say what happened, i say used to know when walter and chat and david ewing and computer repair. i said i'm going to surprise you. there is a richer menu of information out there now than there ever has been. you can no longer be a couch potato. you have to just not retreated
newspaper and watch the birds newscasts. you got to grow up a kind of personal filter system for the information that is coming at you all day long. with which you are being bombarded. what is reliable? what has integrity? was the political motivation of this particular website? all the newspapers now have websites went kind or another and those are still in transition. the same thing as termite business, both over the air and cable that carries journalists. so we are working our way through it. the tests ultimately always is, however, how reliable is the information? what is the integrity of what we see and absorb? that would require more vigilance on the part of those who are on the receiving end of it. we should have no list than
expectation about it. the fact is the reach is so much braver. even while traveling i can get up in the morning, click and read the "financial times" of london can read the latest release of the saudi foreign ministry, go on the website of the foreign relations you overnight developments in the international field and read a couple of papers to say nothing of the broad range of papers available to us in this country. i even read time to time to see how the old high school football team is gone and how my friends are getting along out there. they've got a traffic website. finally, what is most important about this exceptional change that we are a witness to and we are a part of this catalyst ms track stationers -- practitioners, the peace of jerusalem will not and should not go away. it's critical to free people
everywhere. and that cannot be lost in the debate about journalism. people still require a form where they can retrieve information that is useful to them to make decisions that affect their lives and their nation and their communities. and we must redouble our efforts to make sure that the culture of journalists on remains intact and that it is placed in the public dialogue as prominent indefensible. just this past week obviously, we have been witness once again to what i think is one of the fault lines of the american journalism at the moment and that is has it has become kind of an echo chamber. something like a hermit came accusations as an episode get into the system and they squeeze out almost everything else. it's a kind of lemminglike journalistic pattern that
develops in which everyone chases the same story. the fact that the matter is that herman cain decided to run for president some time ago. where were we going back to find out what his history was? he had a fairly prominent role in america as president of the restaurant association. he was on the board of the reader's digest association. there was a time not so long ago when anyone who declares can fully expect to be the object of a series of reports in the "washington post" or "the wall street journal" and "the new york times" or on television. no longer appeared nowadays everybody chasing candidates around the landscape for a base and when something happens, play in a giant game of gotcha. so i do think that may be a place to begin. you are always going to have the horse race in american politics. you're always going to chase the
scandals. the american public deserves more from us, from the people stepping forward to running as possibly president of the united states, they require a long, in-depth examination of who they are in an examination of what their policies are. across the board. republicans, democrats and independents. that is the least that we the voting audience and the people who give us all the freedoms that we have in the first amendment to the constitution, freedom of the press. now having said all that, we can always expect that there will be a robust debate in this country. that in fact some of the language that we are seeing now is reasonably mild, even by contemporary standards. there is a new book out on the campaign of 1948. i was reading passages from it last night.
harry truman, give them hell harry. everyone remembers that campaign. at one point made a speech in which he compared tom dooley and effect to hitler and mussolini and it was recorded and printed in that fashion. he said that tom dooley is just like what happened in germany and the financial interest decided they had to estimate represent them and it was adolf hitler. the same thing had been italy. what they do the people went ballistic, but he returned in step by his guns and continued the campaign and that fashion. so we have a rich tradition of that. moreover, here's something that may surprise a lot of people. abraham lincoln was in no way one of the first bloggers when he was a lawyer and it did in illinois politics, he wrote scathing criticisms of his political opponents under a
pseudonym, scathing criticisms of it that had very little basis in fact, very opinionated and very scurrilous. and of course, because he was so well known, one of his opponents called him out and challenged him to a duel. and because he was challenged and a large tanker demand, abraham lincoln decided he would choose broadswords. and they met just across the line because duels were not permissible in illinois. they met in missouri at dawn and thank god wiser heads prevailed and called off, but it was provoked by a lincoln blogger, using someone else's name. so it's worth keeping all that in historical context. finally, i will share with you
two stories of the conclusion of my book. one involves my grandchildren. meredith and i are big outdoors people. we are bad packers and i print a lot. she's a big horsewoman. we couldn't wait for the grandchildren to be old enough so we could take him into the backcountry montana. so we rushed it when they were seven and five, our two oldest. he decided they should go in the first we took them into the wilderness there are branch to a very backcountry, very rudimentary cabinets on our property. a little bit of whining on the part about the insects and how hard the walkways. we got there and headed up cookout. at the end, meredith said to them clarendon meredith, you are going to sleep in the cab and come a tiny cabin were cowboys hang out and tom and i will be outside in our sleeping bags. we gave them headlamps and type
in their sleeping bags and you can see they had a lot of questions that they were praising them. so there is an icon in their sleeping bags outside the tent. we could hear he whispered conversation inside. and the youngest of the two suddenly came out and stood on the porch and looked at the two of us and said to meredith, mayhem, we need an adult in here now. last night i think that may be a metaphor for the country. and then finally, the amick to the follows that is that i always learned some thing from the wild from nature when i'm in montana. every year there is some kind of enduring lesson that i learned from the animal life or from the storms that blow through with the floods that have were sincere winters. the most memorable for me came four years ago when our river was very high, almost a flood stage because of the runoff. they went to a high point
overlooking the river that was bordered by a conifer grove and on the other side to get to the grassy pastures in the range of our ranch of thick rows of hawthorn bushes. out of the conifer grove came about 12 out cows and their newborn calves. and they stood and looked amis. i was about 200 yards away at that point and decided i was no threat. so the mother cows let these newborn calves into these very, very high and strong raging river. and they swam across in the calves were having a hard time splashing their way through the hawthorn bushes. they all made it except for one and he was swept downstream. now i'm thinking, what do i do here? on his own he found found an anti, a blackcurrant and god upon this sandbar and what do the little further and was on the far bank. the rest of the herd was across the river and they were waiting
patiently and he tried again until the second time. and then he got back on this sandbar and tried a third time it failed again. now, i can barely breathe watching all of this, but with god as my witness after the third time he stood on that sand ape trembling, across the way his mother separated himself from the herd, went to the edge of the river, looked at him and nodded her majestic head, waded into the river, nuzzled and son and then let them upstream to a safer place where they both got across while the rest of the herd waited for them and then they moved on to greener pastures. our country is a flood stage. we need to find a way that we can navigate the university together and find ways to higher ground. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause]
>> thank you very much, tom. it's a real pleasure to have your today. a lot of smiling faces in our audience. using the term the greatest generation of the bases, how would you categorize the current generation? >> well, the young people coming of age arrests? >> maybe both. >> alright. i am not a boomer. i'm a member of the so-called generation where there was a lot of birds going on during the war and had been fascinated by the vb boomers because i was just close enough to them that we shared a lot of interest and i covered them as a reporter and i call that the unresolved generation. i don't think they are fully resolved today want to be and how they want to be remembered. the current generation coming of age now are called broadly speaking the millennialist. and they are beginning to get a
subset because they have been so chastened by what's happening economically. a lot of them have moved home not because they are slackers and they can't find a job in afford housing, so marketers are beginning to call them feel frivolous. they are spending money much more carefully than their parents did and they are making decisions kind of a week or day at a time, spending time online talking to everybody else and they are skeptical about a lot of the institutions we have all taken for granted, including corporations of the kind of job security they have. that's how i would characterize that. >> we dealt with similar things in recent luncheons including one where ken burns is here to talk about his new three-part series prohibition and he uses that as sort of a program to talk about divisiveness in u.s. history. how would you place this. witnessing right now relative to such other. throughout her entire american
history? >> well, i think we don't know yet. you would see more perspective and distance from what we're going through. it does seem at the moment and we know this for a fact, this is a very difficult time in part because the old rules don't seem to apply. i was with a group of very sophisticated economists and ceos in late 09, almost to a man they said the recovery would be well underway by the fourth quarter of 10 because of the amount of stimulus the government was going to unleash. everybody underestimated the depth of the housing crisis and the systemic quality of unemployment in this country, about companies learning how to do their job and make money with fewer workers. moreover, everybody also underestimated the kind of ruthlessness and what turned out to be the inefficiency of wall street with its instruments in which they were just trading
monday. we got 40% of our economy now made a financial services. doesn't make anything. they just treat a lot of instruments. finally, everyone underestimated the conductivity in the global economy. whoever thought that when greece got cold we can get the flu? but that is really what has happened is that everything is so tied together anymore that embraces around the world in an extraordinary hurry. on the political climate we started to see interesting things happen and seems to now have been garnered a response from wall street people. in terms of the political environment wherein and obviously you sort of came of age in terms of your career during watergate. that was a rough time as well. how does this feel to you now? going back to the reference of abraham lincoln.
>> 1968 was a difficult time. this country was deeply, deeply divided by the war and the counterculture is going on in the streets of chicago and other places and the war was a real cancer in american life. we lost 16,000 people in vietnam. think about that. and the one your lovely.or king and bobby kennedy were both assassinated. and yet, we had an economic underpinning which things are pretty good economically. even the people in the streets and a home to go back to her probably could get a job that they chose to because there was a real demand for the work place, which changed now is there some much economic uncertainty and that causes exceptional anxiety. if you take the people who have a home in foreclosure or in danger of it with the value has gone way down compared to their markets, that represents in most instances the great bulk of their net worth.
and they cannot see looking out how they're ever going to get out from under that. and then you have older workers who blast their jobs or have been furloughed and they don't have a retirement program anymore. what is going to happen to them? we had a pretty lively debate because i've been critical of the aarp and its new web and we're the aarp, 50 million strong. don't cut her benefits. remember, we though. i would've been more useful for the aarp to say a lot of our members need all these benefits. we, however, would like to have a dialogue. reach out to us. we know about entitlement programs that we want to be a part of this discussion. as if everyone retreats to their corners and issues that, i don't know how we get downstream. the fact is medicare needs to be reformed, structurally and otherwise. so security cannot be sustained at its current levels of us who
make significant changes. we made changes during the reagan years. it's time for other changes now. that is what i think organizations including the aarp but others thought to be saying. bring us to the table. we've got some nice. all americans are many americans guilty of the same issue of failing to be willing to make a significant sacrifice like the greatest generation? >> now, i think more and more they are. here's what i do think however. the national dead is a critical issue. it is going to be left behind for our children and grandchildren to pay off the debt and it is going to make life that much more expensive at every level in this country. but for most americans, they can't touch it or if you look or smell it. so it is just kind about here. if things are okay for them they won't worry too much.